Table 3.

Change in WOMAC pain (100 mm) from baseline by study visit, injection technique, and treatment arm.

Injection technique	Treatment arm	Difference from baseline
		Week 1 (mean ± SD)	Week 3 (mean ± SD)	Week 6 (mean ± SD)	Week 12 (mean ± SD)	Week 18 (mean ± SD)	Week 26 (mean ± SD)
Anterolateral (AL)	Cingal	−36.2 ± 21.5	−43.7 ± 18.7	−44.3 ± 19.1	−41.4 ± 21.2	−43.8 ± 18.7	−46.0 ± 15.8
	Monovisc	−34.2 ± 18.1	−40.7 ± 18.5	−45.3 ± 15.9	−45.2 ± 18.7	−44.7 ± 23.4	−44.5 ± 23.8
	Saline	−24.1 ± 14.0	−29.8 ± 13.2	−34.6 ± 12.8	−30.3 ± 18.6	−28.4 ± 25.9	−32.1 ± 25.7
	ANOVA (P value)	.1285	.0535	.1224	.0601	.0526	.1088
Anteromedial (AM)	Cingal	−38.2 ± 22.2	−43.1 ± 22.0	−43.0 ± 23.2	−43.9 ± 23.1	−42.4 ± 23.2	−46.4 ± 19.8
	Monovisc	−27.7 ± 24.0	−34.2 ± 24.5	−39.0 ± 23.2	−40.7 ± 24.5	−39.9 ± 25.1	−41.9 ± 24.0
	Saline	−27.1 ± 22.5	−30.4 ± 22.1	−38.2 ± 21.9	−32.8 ± 25.8	−37.0 ± 26.0	−36.6 ± 21.5
	ANOVA (P value)	.0312*	.0383+	.5752	.1616	.6438	.1642
Lateral midpatellar (LM)	Cingal	−30.4 ± 18.7	−35.4 ± 18.3	−36.2 ± 18.7	−38.2 ± 17.4	−36.7 ± 18.2	−36.7 ± 18.1
	Monovisc	−28.8 ± 20.2	−31.8 ± 20.0	−35.3 ± 18.3	−33.1 ± 19.9	−33.1 ± 21.6	−34.1 ± 20.0
	Saline	−27.5 ± 16.0	−33.1 ± 18.4	−33.5 ± 21.8	−29.3 ± 24.8	−28.1 ± 21.6	−30.1 ± 24.1
	ANOVA (P value)	.7671	.5997	.8258	.1190	.1716	.3566

Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index.

^*Statistically significant result (P < .05). Cingal demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in pain at this visit compared with both Monovisc and saline (P = .0168 and .0458, respectively), with no significant difference between Monovisc and saline (P = .9154).

⁺Statistically significant result (P < .05). Cingal demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in pain at this visit compared with both Monovisc and saline (P = .0449 and .0231, respectively), with no significant difference between Monovisc and saline (P = .4782).

Post hoc power analysis results at 12 weeks: 55% (AL), 38% (AM), and 43% (LM).